Presidential Election 2008

[Crimson King]

Well, it's quickly approaching. In a little over a month, we start the major primaries. Who does everyone see gaining the Democrat and G.O.P. nomination? Who does everyone see taking the whole thing? My answer remains simply: Ron Paul.

The man is becoming less of a myth and more of a legend. He managed to surpass John McCain who was at one point considered the front-runner and managed to raise 1.2 million in about a week. He's current spending is only about $5.3 million, but that is ALL contributions and nothing from government spending. He is the second most viewed candidate on Youtube and the most subscribed to speaker. But does he truly have a shot?

His message is simple: Liberty. He's pro-life, anti-war, anti-income tax, and a government minimalist. His plans for the war are very clear: ALL troops out of everywhere we shouldn't be, i.e. anywhere but the US. He wants to cut the IRS and Federal Reserve board to restore our economy to a capitalist, pro-market one. But can he truly win?

His main competition, if he does secure the G.O.P. nomination is more than likely Hilary Clinton. America is by no means ready for a female president, and certainly not ready for another horribly politician. She voted FOR the war in Iraq, while Ron Paul voted against it. Yet, she will bring our troops home?

There is so much more to Ron Paul, that this minimized intro omitted and it's more of just my side of this argument. Who does anyone else support and does Ron Paul have a chance?

 

[The Mad Hatter]

As much as I hate to say it, Hillary will be the front runner. I'll do what I can to make sure she will not step foot in the white house again.

 

[Falco&Victory]

I really don't like any of the presidential candidates. Either they're inexperienced or have a little too much experience

I hate Hillary with a passion, but if she helps our economy a bit then i won't be too ashamed at seeing her office. All in all, go no one!

 

[cF=)]

Pro-life ? You got to be kidding me. But if he's anti-war, go Ron Paul I guess...

 

[Mediocre]

SUMMARY: Edwards is my favorite, Hilary wouldn't be so horrible, I like Obama but he's inexperienced. Republicans suck.

Ron Paul appeals to a small but vocal minority. He's got pretty much no chance. Sorry, CK, but I really think you're deluding yourself here if you think he's got a chance.

McCain used to appeal to me in some ways because he was a rather honest politician, but now that he's given that up in favor of political expediency, I like him less and less. I never would have supported him for president, but at least I used to respect him. Anyway, he was much too militaristic for me to want to support him.

Giuliani is such a liar and a fear monger that I'm amazed anybody supports him. His popularity seems to stem solely from his handling of 9/11 and its aftermath, but he didn't really do anything special. I'm sorry, but being the mayor of NYC during 9/11 isn't enough to qualify you for President. Also, he's far too hawkish for me. I don't want him to continue Bush's foreign policy legacy. I agree with a lot of his social stances, but that's not enough.

Romney is far too conservative on social issues (although it's likely he's just playing to the Republican base, given his record in the past). He's too pro-military and idiotically anti-tax. Also, this really turned me off:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/10/07/romney.confronted.cnn

If he sees the world as so black and white that he can't allow the use of medical marijuana when it's the only viable treatment option for some patients, he's not fit to be president. I understand (although I do not agree with) his general opposition to medical marijuana, but when it's the only choice available, exceptions have to be made.

I like Obama in a lot of ways, but I think he's simply too inexperienced to be President. His views on foreign policy don't make a lot of sense, although he does seem to have a decent handle on domestic issues. However, right now we need a president who understands foreign policy more than we have in decades.

Edwards is somebody who I like alot, respect quite a bit, and generally agree with. I'd vote for him in an instant, and I'd definitely prefer him over Hilary. I agree with him on the majority of domestic issues. He's admitted that his vote to authorize the war in 2002 was a mistake, something that Hilary has yet to do. Honestly, he's my favorite candidate in any party, right now, and I hope he makes it to the general election. However, that's looking unlikely now, because Hilary is the clear frontrunner.

Hilary is someone who will be a very competent leader and president, but also someone who I disagree with in a lot of areas. I feel that she's a bit too hawkish with regards to foreign policy, although I don't think that she's idiotically hawkish in the way that Bush has proven himself to be. Her desire to make flag burning illegal, as well as her desire to place other limitations on free speach (video games, for example), definitely gives me serious pause. I don't like it when anyone tries to outlaw an idea, or the peaceful expression of any idea. Honestly, this type of thing is what gives me the most serious reservations about Clinton. Still, I think she'd be a very good president, and could correct a lot of the mistakes made by President Bush. I'm glad that I like her alright, because it sure looks like she's going to be the Democratic nominee.

 

[Xsyven]

Giuliani is such a liar and a fear monger that I'm amazed anybody supports him. His popularity seems to stem solely from his handling of 9/11 and its aftermath, but he didn't really do anything special. I'm sorry, but being the mayor of NYC during 9/11 isn't enough to qualify you for President.

Giuliani is to 9/11 as Kerry is to Purple Hearts.

I totally agree with you here. Every time he says 9/11, the crowd just cheers. Some people are just so mindless...

Romney is far too conservative on social issues (although it's likely he's just playing to the Republican base, given his record in the past). He's too pro-military and idiotically anti-tax. Also, this really turned me off:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/pol...confronted.cnn

If he sees the world as so black and white that he can't allow the use of medical marijuana when it's the only viable treatment option for some patients, he's not fit to be president. I understand (although I do not agree with) his general opposition to medical marijuana, but when it's the only choice available, exceptions have to be made.

That video made me laugh... I think it's good that he's decisive, just not that blunt. We don't know the whole story. I'm sure that he wouldn't say "THEN DIE" if the alternate medications honestly didn't work.

His stance is against legalizing medical marijuanna. If he said "Well, in your case..." people would consider him hypocritical. So no matter what, that was just a bad situation caught on tape.

At least he's not saying this:

Hilary Clinton ... She voted FOR the war in Iraq, ... Yet, she will bring our troops home?

 

[Blackadder]

I'm obviously not American, so I'm not that good on this side of things. I’ll keep what I think simple. I'm against Hilary. Anyone who votes yes on the war loses my trust or liking. Also, I've always thought she seems slightly unscrupulous.

But then, I don't really like ANY politician. Anyone who wants that much power is usually unfit for it.
But none of the current candidates could be any worse than Bush is. His election was one of the world’s biggest screw-ups.

I just hope American gets someone good this time around, though I doubt it. Especially if Hilary gets in. She just seems shady to me, but I’ve never been able to figure out why…

 

[Mediocre]

That video made me laugh... I think it's good that he's decisive, just not that blunt. We don't know the whole story. I'm sure that he wouldn't say "THEN DIE" if the alternate medications honestly didn't work.

His stance is against legalizing medical marijuanna. If he said "Well, in your case..." people would consider him hypocritical. So no matter what, that was just a bad situation caught on tape.

I really can't see where you're coming from on this one.

The correct answer, both politically and practically, was obviously something along the lines of, "I don't know. I'll have to look into that on my own." Simply sticking to your guns when presented with evidence that runs contrary to your opinion isn't the right choice. You have to look at the new information, and reconsider your position on the issue. You may come to the same conclusion, but that's a lot different than simply ignoring new information.

I'm not against a decisive president. I'm against a president who's totally blind to any possibility that he might be wrong, and simply shoves aside anyone with a dissenting opinion.

 

[Xsyven]

I'm not against a decisive president. I'm against a president who's totally blind to any possibility that he might be wrong, and simply shoves aside anyone with a dissenting opinion.

So you want a president that gets things wrong, but it's okay as long as he admits it? (See what I'm doing to you here?) Anything you say, I can make you sound bad. Same thing with this situation.

I seriously just think Romney was stuck between a rock and a hard place here. Any answer could be taken badly.

 

[lonejedi]

I'm obviously not American, so I'm not that good on this side of things. I’ll keep what I think simple. I'm against Hilary. Anyone who votes yes on the war loses my trust or liking. Also, I've always thought she seems slightly unscrupulous.

But then, I don't really like ANY politician. Anyone who wants that much power is usually unfit for it.
But none of the current candidates could be any worse than Bush is. His election was one of the world’s biggest screw-ups.

I just hope American gets someone good this time around, though I doubt it. Especially if Hilary gets in. She just seems shady to me, but I’ve never been able to figure out why…

Ok, I just want to point out, you have no right to say it's one of the world's biggest screw ups, when you prob know no history of the U.S. or the world in general. Unless you can name me all of the past Presidents of the U.S. all of the lleaders of the world, and everything they did, you have no right to base your assumption of your short life lived on the world.

Being conservative myself, I don't see me voting for any democrat, unless Lieberman runs.
Definitely not McCain. It's between Fred Thompson and Giuliani for me.

For those of you who think is just going win because of 9/11 are not looking past what he did before that. You do realize that New York City is more populated than alot of states themselves. So for him to run it, it's basically like running a small state as a governor.
He's also done more than just be the guy who was there at 9/11. If I remember right, he lowered the crime rate by alot after he took over as mayor.

 

[Mediocre]

So you want a president that gets things wrong, but it's okay as long as he admits it? (See what I'm doing to you here?) Anything you say, I can make you sound bad. Same thing with this situation.

I seriously just think Romney was stuck between a rock and a hard place here. Any answer could be taken badly.

No, you can't take whatever I say and make it sound bad. You can say a completely different thing that sounds bad by itself, which is what you just did.

I want a president who can look at facts and then make a decision, rather than simply base his view on a rigid ideology. I want a practical president, rather than one who is so impressed by his own opinions that he can't consider other possibilities.

No, he doesn't need to say that they're wrong. I understand that politicians tend not to do that, whether because of their personal pride or because they think it will hurt them politically.

So, yes, I expect the most powerful man in the world to be able to change his opinions on issues that are going to affect everybody in existence, in one way or another. I have high expectations of somebody who's going to lead the country I live in. Is that unreasonable of me?

I don't think so, and I think it's strange that you do.

 

[Blackadder]

Ok, I just want to point out, you have no right to say it's one of the world's biggest screw ups, when you prob know no history of the U.S. or the world in general. Unless you can name me all of the past Presidents of the U.S. all of the lleaders of the world, and everything they did, you have no right to base your assumption of your short life lived on the world.

Point taken, though I was using a bit of a hyperbole.

But I do think that Bush really is an awful leader, and he's managed to get Australia's Prime Minister to want to follow eagerly in his footsteps, such as sending our troops to this silly war, NOT signing the Kyoto Protocol, ect.

And all just because Bush told us to. And he is clearly unfit for any leadership of any sort. I just truly think he is an awful man in general, for what he’s doing to the world.

Incidentally, who is the leading America's eco-friendly party?
I doubt they have any chance of winning at all ever, but I like to think those people are usualy better than ther candidates.

 

[Crimson King]

Ok, I just want to point out, you have no right to say it's one of the world's biggest screw ups, when you prob know no history of the U.S. or the world in general. Unless you can name me all of the past Presidents of the U.S. all of the lleaders of the world, and everything they did, you have no right to base your assumption of your short life lived on the world.

Being conservative myself, I don't see me voting for any democrat, unless Lieberman runs.
Definitely not McCain. It's between Fred Thompson and Giuliani for me.

For those of you who think is just going win because of 9/11 are not looking past what he did before that. You do realize that New York City is more populated than alot of states themselves. So for him to run it, it's basically like running a small state as a governor.
He's also done more than just be the guy who was there at 9/11. If I remember right, he lowered the crime rate by alot after he took over as mayor.

My problem with Giuliani is that his political career consists of him being mayor. That's it. ANYONE can run for mayor and win, he just happened to have a VERY highly populated city that was attacked by terrorist under his guard. He did a good job, MUCH better than many could have handled it, but to make him president seems a bit much. He has a personal vendetta against ANYONE involved with 9/11, he'll be more militant than Bush. Mark my words.

 

[Digital Watches]

Ron Paul appeals to a small but vocal minority. He's got pretty much no chance. Sorry, CK, but I really think you're deluding yourself here if you think he's got a chance.

Agreed. I'm also hesitant to agree with Ron Paul's somewhat isolationist policies. Sure, it'll get us out of Iraq, but it'll also start to cause other problems after not very long.

Giuliani is such a liar and a fear monger that I'm amazed anybody supports him.

You are? Really? Mediocre, you never struck me as the naive sort.

His popularity seems to stem solely from his handling of 9/11 and its aftermath, but he didn't really do anything special. I'm sorry, but being the mayor of NYC during 9/11 isn't enough to qualify you for President. Also, he's far too hawkish for me. I don't want him to continue Bush's foreign policy legacy. I agree with a lot of his social stances, but that's not enough.

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if he got the nomination.

Romney is far too conservative on social issues (although it's likely he's just playing to the Republican base, given his record in the past). He's too pro-military and idiotically anti-tax. Also, this really turned me off:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/10/07/romney.confronted.cnn

If he sees the world as so black and white that he can't allow the use of medical marijuana when it's the only viable treatment option for some patients, he's not fit to be president. I understand (although I do not agree with) his general opposition to medical marijuana, but when it's the only choice available, exceptions have to be made.

I'll agree that Romney is a bit too socially conservative, and I'd add to that that there's no reason to believe he won't continue to play to his republican base, even after getting elected.

I like Obama in a lot of ways, but I think he's simply too inexperienced to be President.

I'm actually rather annoyed by this view. It seemed like a very transparent and vague attack when Republicans and the Clinton campaign started saying it a while back, and I'm slightly disgusted, if not surprised, that so many have been listening to it. The fact of the matter is, he's over thirty-five (And therefore can run) and has had a previous career in politics for quite a while. I'd hesitate to say that Obama is necessarily the best or most likely candidate for the presidency, but I'd certainly be remiss if he wasn't considered because of something stupid like that.

Edwards is somebody who I like alot, respect quite a bit, and generally agree with. I'd vote for him in an instant, and I'd definitely prefer him over Hilary. I agree with him on the majority of domestic issues. He's admitted that his vote to authorize the war in 2002 was a mistake, something that Hilary has yet to do. Honestly, he's my favorite candidate in any party, right now, and I hope he makes it to the general election. However, that's looking unlikely now, because Hilary is the clear frontrunner.

Edwards and Obama are very similar in a lot of ways, including fairly left-leaning policies compared to other democrat candidates, and, unfortunately, voter base. It's a shame that both are running, because I'd probably say that either would have a chance of beating out Hillary in the primaries if the other weren't running.

Hilary is someone who will be a very competent leader and president, but also someone who I disagree with in a lot of areas. I feel that she's a bit too hawkish with regards to foreign policy, although I don't think that she's idiotically hawkish in the way that Bush has proven himself to be. Her desire to make flag burning illegal, as well as her desire to place other limitations on free speach (video games, for example), definitely gives me serious pause. I don't like it when anyone tries to outlaw an idea, or the peaceful expression of any idea. Honestly, this type of thing is what gives me the most serious reservations about Clinton. Still, I think she'd be a very good president, and could correct a lot of the mistakes made by President Bush. I'm glad that I like her alright, because it sure looks like she's going to be the Democratic nominee.

To be honest, I've got a lot of reservations about Hillary. It seems like I disagree with her in some areas (Which you've already mentioned), agree in precious few (Select things about her proposed handling of the war) and she refuses to take a solid stance on anything else (or at least refuses to explain it to anyone.) For all the reasons mentioned, as well as the presence of (in my opinion) at least two better candidates in her own party, I'm really annoyed that she's probably going to get onto the democratic ticket.

 

[cF=)]

Just read a bit about Ron Paul, it seems like he's against war on drugs and for medical marijuana use. Even if he does become president, never will he be able to pass such a law because he'll get shot by a pharmaceutical hitman prior to it. So I guess it's another reason why he stands no chance...

I also saw somewhere on the net he was not necessarily pro-life, but would rather let every state make his own law about abortion. So that doesn't make him a bad guy after all if he's for women choice, anti-war, anti-war on drugs, anti-income tax, and a government minimalist !

 

[Crimson King]

Just read a bit about Ron Paul, it seems like he's against war on drugs and for medical marijuana use. Even if he does become president, never will he be able to pass such a law because he'll get shot by a pharmaceutical hitman prior to it. So I guess it's another reason why he stands no chance...

I also saw somewhere on the net he was not necessarily pro-life, but would rather let every state make his own law about abortion. So that doesn't make him a bad guy after all if he's for women choice, anti-war, anti-war on drugs, anti-income tax, and a government minimalist !

The War on Drugs is essentially pointless and just a needless drain on our economy. Instead of doing pro-active techniques to curb drug use, the punish the addicts which yields nothing.

Ron Paul IS pro-life, but believes the federal government cannot tell states what is or isn't legal for them that isn't in the constitution. He believes that states should vote on Abortion, capital punishment and gay marriage and let it remain at the state level.

 

[KevinM]

Ron Paul is looking for the elimination of Property taxes is he not? Thats been going around the mid west for a while, was he in support of that?

 

[Crimson King]

Well, huge update! ThisNovember5th.com organized the LARGEST donation to a candidate in single day. Ron Paul missed his October 31st Goal of $4 million by an estimated 1.5 million, but as of today he is at 7.3 million thanks to ThisNovember5th.com, an estimated totally of nearly 3.8 million through 35,000 donations. What the website did was gather as many people as possible to pledge to donate money to RP on that day. It was a huge success. Excellently. I am not sure if that figure is added to his 5 million, but he is still aiming to raise 12 million by December 31. Pretty amazing.

 

[lonejedi]

BUMPING AN OLD TOPIC FTW.

So as of now, there are three realistic canidates left in the race. Although I support Huckabee, he has no chance at all. So we're down to McCain, Hilary, and Obama. I honestly like Obama as a person. He seems like a reasonable guy, but I can't make myself vote for someone who hasn't really done anything. The guy talks about change, and he doesn't sound like he has a plan for it.

It seems like on every news channel I watch, the anchor is asking the people on the show name an accomplishment he's completed, and 99% of the time, they can't or they come up with a bogus answer like, he's a black senator! Seriously, how many people are voting for this guy just because he's black, and he talks positive.

I can't see myself voting for Hilary for obvious reasons.

McCain, for me, is the only viable choice. He won't get out of Iraq, because doing so would totally defeat what we're doing right now. He's for the fixing of NAFTA. ( I find it funny, wasn't NAFTA created stated by Bill Clinton, and Hillary doesn't support it?) And he's pretty conservative in most areas, others are lacking, but I can put up with it.

So who is everyone else looking to vote for? And if so, give a reason why.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I really cant get excited about anybody.

I think Obama will inevitably become the president so Im trying my best to see some good in him. To me is basically picking the lesser of two evils. I dont think we are ready to give a woman, whom has no experience with the military, control of said military. I dont necessarily think she would abuse/misuse the power I just feel there would be a lack of respect.

I do feel a lot of voters are simply voting for Obama because he is black. I know this is not the case for the most part but I also feel this is not the best reason to base a vote on. People say he is a smooth talker but has accomplished very little. I agree, but I think being a smooth talker deserves more credit then what its getting. Sometimes a great speech can do great things. FDR's "There is nothing to fear but fear itself" speech comes to mind.

McCain's election looks to be an uphill battle and Huckabee just wont give up (which I admire). I personally feel America is ready for a change and they see a different party as that answer.

So who will I vote for? I truly dont know yet.

 

[Crimson King]

Ron Paul is staying in until the convention to keep getting publicity. After that, I am burning my registration card.

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

I'm no longer excited for any of the candidates, mostly out of sheer spite of the campaign system. It's turned into a childish game of "Who can dig up the most crap about the other guy," and the pointlessness keeps going back and forth. For YEARS.

I used to be in support for Hillary, because I'm a Democrat, and like others have said, I can't see myself voting for someone with pretty much no experience. Having a female president would also open the door to the rest of the viable female politicians in the country, especially if Hillary does a good job.

But now? I don't really care. I'd like Hillary to win, but more than anything, I'd like to stop hearing about the campaign trail whenever the news happens to be on.

 

[Crimson King]

McCain is famous for that. Every debate I've seen him in, he comes off as some frat ******* who just taunts people. Seriously, you can tell how uncomfortable people are around him.

 

[Teebs]

For me, it comes down to Ron Paul and Barack Obama.

All I can say is, if Hillary makes it into the White House, I'm moving to Canada.

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

For me, it comes down to Ron Paul and Barack Obama.

All I can say is, if Hillary makes it into the White House, I'm moving to Canada.

I'm just generally curious why people hate her so much and think that she'll make the worst president of all time. Seriously, she MIGHT be awful, but I don't think it's fair to jump the gun and assume the worst immediately.

Even people who hate Bush now admit that he was definitely a viable candidate during the campaign. It goes to show, how you appear on the campaign trail has nothing to do with how you'll do the job, or how people will judge your performance along the road.